The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misconception of the facts, although there was no conspiracy to commit each of the crimes in this case with the public contestants E, B, F, and each of the crimes in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the Defendant as a joint principal offender for each of the crimes in this case.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the degree of participation of the criminal defendant in sentencing, etc.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant denied the facts charged at an investigative agency, while recognizing the facts charged in the instant case in the court of original instance, but denied the facts charged in the instant case after re-reconcing them.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, this part of the defendant's assertion is unacceptable.

(1) The defendant himself introduced F to another accomplice as a part of the horse company.

In light of the fact that there is no consistency in the statement from the investigative agency to the trial of the party, such as making a statement to the effect that the F's phone number is not well known through the written reasoning of appeal, it is difficult to reverse the original judgment without presenting any particular reason or evidence for the defendant at the trial.

In relation to this part of the facts charged by the defense counsel of the court below, the defendant argued to the effect that he stated in the court below as above by advising that he will be sentenced to a suspended sentence. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and it is difficult to easily understand the result of the court below's finding guilty with hearing only the advice of the defense counsel who cannot be known in advance and without separation in light of the empirical rule.

(2) The core.